Treatment of everolimus-resistant metastatic renal cell carcinoma with VEGF-targeted therapies

Background:

Treatment of everolimus-resistant disease remains largely undefined in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We report on 40 patients (pts) who receive systemic treatment after failure of everolimus.

Patients and methods:

Forty pts received sunitinib (n=19), sorafenib (n=8), dovitinib (n=10) or bevacizumab/interferon (n=3) after failure of everolimus. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and best tumour response (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) were analysed retrospectively. Kaplan–Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate or predict OS and PFS.

Results:

Treatment of everolimus-resistant disease was associated with a PFS of 5.5 months. (range 0.4–22.3) and an objective partial remission (PR) in 4 pts (10%) and stable disease (SD) in 22 pts (55%). In univariate analyses, first-line treatment with sorafenib was the only variable to correlate with a prolonged PFS of treatment in everolimus-resistant disease (P=0.036). However, its significance as a predictive marker for subsequent therapy could not be verified in multivariate analyses.

Conclusions:

Vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy shows promising activity in everolimus-resistant metastatic renal cancer and warrants further studies.     

Sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma: a phase II trial

Background:

Advanced biliary tract carcinoma has a very poor prognosis, with chemotherapy being the mainstay of treatment. Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR-2/-3, PDGFR-β, B-Raf, and C-Raf, has shown to be active in preclinical models of cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods:

We conducted a phase II trial of single-agent sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma. Sorafenib was administered at a dose of 400 mg twice a day. The primary end point was the disease control rate at 12 weeks.

Results:

A total of 46 patients were treated. In all, 26 (56%) had received chemotherapy earlier, and 36 patients completed at least 45 days of treatment. In intention-to-treat analysis, the objective response was 2% and the disease control rate at 12 weeks was 32.6%. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.3 months (range: 0–12 months), and the median overall survival was 4.4 months (range: 0–22 months). Performance status was significantly related to PFS: median PFS values for ECOG 0 and 1 were 5.7 and 2.1 months, respectively (P=0.0002). The most common toxicities were skin rash (35%) and fatigue (33%), requiring a dose reduction in 22% of patients.

Conclusions:

Sorafenib as a single agent has a low activity in cholangiocarcinoma. Patients having a good performance status have a better PFS. The toxicity profile is manageable.     

Sorafenib in advanced melanoma: a critical role for pharmacokinetics?

Background:

Inter-patient pharmacokinetic variability can lead to suboptimal drug exposure, and therefore might impact the efficacy of sorafenib. This study reports long-term pharmacokinetic monitoring of patients treated with sorafenib and a retrospective pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic analysis in melanoma patients.

Patients and methods:

Heavily pretreated patients with stage IV melanoma were started on sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (bid). In the absence of limiting toxicity, dose escalation of 200 mg bid levels was done every 2 weeks. Plasma sorafenib measurement was performed at each visit, allowing a retrospective pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic analysis for safety and efficacy.

Results:

In all, 19 of 30 patients underwent dose escalation over 400 mg bid, and 28 were evaluable for response. The overall disease control rate was 61% (95% confidence interval (CI): 42.6–78.8), including three confirmed responses (12%). Disease control rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were improved in patients with high vs low exposure (80% vs 32%, P=0.02, and 5.25 vs 2.5 months, P=0.005, hazard ratio (HR)=0.28 (95% CI: 0.11–0.73)). In contrast, drug dosing had no effect on PFS. In multivariate analysis, drug exposure was the only factor associated with PFS (HR=0.36 (95% CI: 0.13–0.99)). Diarrhoea and anorexia were correlated with drug dosing, while hypertension and hand–foot skin reaction were correlated with drug exposure.

Conclusions:

Although sorafenib had modest efficacy in melanoma, these results suggest a correlation between exposure and efficacy of sorafenib. Therefore, dose optimisation in patients with low exposure at standard doses should be evaluated in validated indications.     

Sorafenib and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma: phase I and open-label phase II studies

Method:

The safety of oral sorafenib up to a maximum protocol-specified dose combined with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic, histologically confirmed melanoma was investigated in a phase I dose-escalation study and the activity of the combination was explored in an open-label phase II study.

Results:

In the phase I study, three patients were treated with sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) plus 1000 mg m⁻² dacarbazine on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and 15 patients had the sorafenib dose escalated to 400 mg b.i.d. without reaching the maximum tolerated dose of the combination. In the phase II study (n=83), the overall response rate was 12% (95% CI: 6, 21): one complete and nine partial, with median response duration of 46.7 weeks. Stable disease was the best response in 37% median duration was 13.3 weeks. Median overall survival (OS) was 37.0 weeks (95% CI: 33.9, 46.0).

Conclusion:

Oral sorafenib combined with dacarbazine had acceptable toxicity and some antineoplastic activity against metastatic melanoma.     

Treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer with lapatinib and capecitabine in the lapatinib expanded access programme, including efficacy in brain metastases �C the UK experience

Background:

The global lapatinib expanded access programme provided access to lapatinib combined with capecitabine for women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who previously received anthracycline, taxane and trastuzumab.

Methods:

Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety data for 356 patients recruited from the United Kingdom are reported. Efficacy was assessed in 162 patients from the five lead centres, including objective tumour response rate (ORR), time to disease progression (TTP) and efficacy in those with central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Correlation of PFS and ORR with previous capecitabine treatment was also documented.

Results:

Overall, PFS for the 356 UK patients was 21 weeks (95% CI: 17.6–24.7). In the 162 assessable patients, ORR was 21% (95% CI: 15–27%) and median TTP was 22 weeks (95% CI: 17–27). Efficacy was greater in capecitabine-naive patients (ORR 23 vs 16.3%, P=0.008). For 34 patients with CNS metastases, ORR was 21% (95% CI: 9–39%), with evidence of improvement in neurological symptoms, and median TTP was 22 weeks (95% CI: 15–28).

Conclusions:

Lapatinib combined with capecitabine is an active treatment option for women with refractory HER2-positive MBC, including those with progressive CNS disease.     

Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may be associated with the outcome in patients treated with everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background:

Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to assess the association between pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the outcome of patients treated with everolimus for mRCC.

Methods:

Ninety-seven patients with mRCC were treated with everolimus till April 2013 in our institutions. Patients were stratified in two groups with NLR >3 (Group A) vs <3 (Group B). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier method. Gender, age, Motzer prognostic group, PFS on first-line therapy, neutrophilia and NLR were included in the Cox analysis to investigate their prognostic relevance.

Results:

Median OS and PFS were 10.6 and 5.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 12.2 months in Group A and 24.4 months in Group B (P=0.001). Median PFS was 3.4 months in Group A and 9.9 months in Group B (P<0.001). At multivariate analysis, only Motzer prognostic group and NLR were independent prognostic factors for OS and PFS.

Conclusion:

Pre-treatment NLR is an independent prognostic factor for patients with mRCC treated with second- or third-line everolimus. This should be investigated and validated in prospective studies.     

Hyponatremia as a prognostic and predictive factor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background:

Low serum sodium has recently been associated with poor survival in localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We now show the prognostic effect of serum sodium in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC).

Methods:

Cohort A comprised 120 consecutive patients with mRCC receiving subcutaneous, low-dose interleukin-2 and interferon-α. Hyponatremia was assessed in univariate and multivariate analyses. An independent cohort of another 120 patients with mRCC was used for validation (cohort B).

Results:

In cohort A, estimated 5-year survival was 15% and median survival was 15.1 months. Serum sodium ranged between 126 and 144 mM. Twenty-four patients (20%) had serum sodium levels below normal range (<136 mM). In multivariate analysis, significant independent risk factors for short survival were low serum sodium (P=0.014), high neutrophils (P=0.018), lactate dehydrogenase >1.5 upper normal level (P=0.002), and number of metastatic sites (+3) (P=0.003). In cohort B, serum sodium ranged between 128 and 146 mM. Seventeen patients (14%) had sodium levels below normal range. In multivariate analysis, serum sodium was validated as an independent prognostic factor (P=0.001). A significant association between lack of response and hyponatremia was observed in both cohorts (P=0.003 and P=0.02, respectively).

Conclusion:

Low serum sodium is a new, validated, independent prognostic, and predictive factor in patients with mRCC.     

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients intolerant to previous VEGFr-TKI therapy: a RECORD-1 subgroup analysis

Background:

A relevant percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma develop intolerance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFr-TKIs) and require careful selection of subsequent treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients enrolled in the phase-III RECORD-1 trial who discontinued previous VEGFr-TKI therapy because of toxicity.

Methods:

Patients with an adverse event (AE) as their primary reason for discontinuation of previous VEGFr-TKI therapy were included. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients in each arm was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and effect on PFS (hazard ratio (HR)) was calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model.

Results:

In VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients (n=58, 14%), median PFS was 5.4 months with everolimus and 1.9 months with placebo (HR: 0.32; P=0.004). In sunitinib-intolerant patients (n=26), median PFS was 5.1 months with everolimus and 2.8 months with placebo (HR: 0.28; P=0.033). Grade 3/4 AEs reported with everolimus in VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients included infections (16%), fatigue (7%) and stomatitis (4%). The toxicity profile of everolimus was similar in the VEGFr-TKI-intolerant and overall study populations.

Conclusion:

Everolimus is well tolerated and efficacious with no increased toxicity in patients intolerant to VEGFr-TKI therapy.     

Activity and safety of NGR-hTNF, a selective vascular-targeting agent, in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background:

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly vascularised and poor-prognosis tumour. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting agent consisting of human tumour necrosis factor-alpha fused to the tumour-homing peptide NGR, which is able to selectively bind an aminopeptidase N overexpressed on tumour blood vessels.

Methods:

Twenty-seven patients with advanced-stage disease resistant to either locoregional (59% range, 1–3), systemic treatments (52% range, 1–3) or both (33%) received NGR-hTNF 0.8 μg m⁻² once every 3 weeks. The primary aim of the study was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

No grade 3–4 treatment-related toxicities were noted. Common toxicity included mild-to-moderate, short-lived chills (63%). Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.7–2.9). A complete response ongoing after 20 months was observed in a sorafenib-refractory patient and a partial response in a Child-Pugh class-B patient, yielding a response rate of 7%. Six patients (22%) experienced stable disease. The disease control rate (DCR) was 30% and was maintained for a median PFS time of 4.3 months. Median survival was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.5–10.2). In a subset of 12 sorafenib-resistant patients, the response rate was 8% and the median survival was 9.5 months.

Conclusion:

NGR-hTNF was well tolerated and showed single-agent activity in HCC. Further investigation in HCC is of interest.     

Baseline quality of life as a prognostic survival tool in patients receiving sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background:

In a randomized phase III trial of sunitinib vs interferon-alfa (IFN-α) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), better baseline quality of life (QoL) was predictive of longer survival. Using this dataset, we have developed a novel prognostic tool that establishes a relationship between baseline QoL scores and median survival time.

Methods:

Baseline QoL was assessed using the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-15 item (FKSI-15), its disease-related symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G) scale. Weibull models estimated median progression-free survival (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS) as a function of baseline QoL.

Results:

Longer PFS and OS were associated with higher baseline FKSI-15, FKSI-DRS, and FACT-G scores (P<0.05), and baseline FKSI-15 score was the best predictor of survival. For example, for a baseline FKSI-15 score of 60, the predicted mPFS was 67.9 weeks, and predicted mOS was 240.6 weeks. The magnitude of benefit was greater with sunitinib vs IFN-α for a given baseline QoL score.

Conclusion:

This novel tool indicates that baseline FKSI-15 scores were linked to mPFS and mOS in a clear and interpretable way. The results support evaluation of patient-reported QoL symptoms at baseline as a prognostic indicator of survival in clinical research and practice.     

Combination therapy: intermittent sorafenib with bevacizumab yields activity and decreased toxicity

Background:

We previously reported preliminary results of our phase I study of continuous daily sorafenib with bevacizumab every other week for solid tumours. Toxicity was moderate, leading to additional dose levels (DL) testing intermittent sorafenib dosing.

Methods:

Seventeen patients with advanced solid tumours were treated on three additional DLs testing sorafenib days 1–5 per week. Dose level 4 was sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) and bevacizumab 5 mg kg⁻¹. DL5 alternated between bevacizumab 10 mg kg⁻¹-sorafenib 200 mg b.i.d. (A) and sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. with bevacizumab 5 mg kg⁻¹ (B). Outcome and toxicity data from 19 epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients from DL 1–5 were analysed.

Results:

Fewer patients required sorafenib dose reduction with the intermittent schedule (41 vs 74% daily, P=0.01). Hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR) remained the primary cause of dose reduction (n=5). Partial responses (12%) or disease stabilisation ⩾4 months (53% median 6 (4–26)) occurred in most patients on the intermittent schedule. Partial response occurred in 47% EOC patients treated in pooled analysis of duration 4–37 months.

Conclusion:

Intermittent sorafenib dosing with bevacizumab has promising clinical activity and less sorafenib dose reduction and side effects, but does not ameliorate HFSR. We are conducting a phase II clinical trial with intermittent sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with EOC.     

Phase II study of continuous daily sunitinib dosing in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background:

Sunitinib malate (SUTENT) has promising single-agent activity given on Schedule 4/2 (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods:

We examined the activity of sunitinib on a continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule in an open-label, multicentre phase II study in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. Patients ⩾18 years with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC after failure with platinum-based chemotherapy, received sunitinib 37.5 mg per day. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), 1-year survival rate, and safety.

Results:

Of 47 patients receiving sunitinib, one patient achieved a confirmed partial response (ORR 2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1, 11.3)) and 11 (23.4%) had stable disease (SD) ⩾8 weeks. Five patients had SD>6 months. Median PFS was 11.9 weeks (95% CI 8.6, 14.1) and median OS was 37.1 weeks (95% CI 31.1, 69.7). The 1-year survival probability was 38.4% (95% CI 24.2, 52.5). Treatment was generally well tolerated.

Conclusions:

The safety profile and time-to-event analyses, albeit relatively low response rate of 2%, suggest single-agent sunitinib on a CDD schedule may be a potential therapeutic agent for patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC.     

A phase I dose-escalation study to evaluate safety and tolerability of sorafenib combined with sirolimus in patients with advanced solid cancer

Background:

The combination of sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor) and sirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) might work synergistically.

Methods:

A phase I dose-escalation study with sorafenib twice a day (b.i.d.) and sirolimus once daily (q.d.) was performed to determine the recommended dose of the combination in patients with solid tumours. Secondary objectives were to determine the safety profile and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the combination.

Results:

Dose-limiting toxicities were transaminitis and cutaneous toxicity. The most frequently reported adverse events were elevated transaminases, hypophosphatemia, fatigue, anorexia, diarrhoea, nausea, rash and palmar–plantar erythrodysaesthesia. Sirolimus did not change the PK of sorafenib; in contrast, sorafenib reduced the AUC₍₀₋₉₆₎ and C_max of sirolimus. No objective responses were observed; eight patients showed stable disease for a median of 16.3 weeks (range 8–24). The MTD of the combination was sorafenib 200 mg b.i.d. with sirolimus 1 mg q.d.

Conclusion:

The combination of sorafenib and sirolimus showed enhanced toxicity, which could not be explained by the PK of both drugs. The relative low doses at the MTD, in combination with the PK results, do not warrant further development of this combination.     

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial

Background:

In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines.

Methods:

In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated.

Results:

Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy.

Conclusions:

AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.     

Pre-treatment lactate dehydrogenase levels as predictor of efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Background:

Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) represents a predictive factor in colorectal cancer patients treated with the angiogenesis inhibitor PTK/ZK. We explored the role of pre-treatment LDH serum levels in colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line bevacizumab.

Methods:

Metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line bevacizumab was eligible. A control group including all consecutive patients treated with chemotherapy alone was also considered. Pre-treatment LDH serum levels were collected for all cases.

Results:

Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the control group for patients with high and low LDH levels was 4.2 and 8 months, respectively (P=0.0003). Median overall survival (OS) was 19.6 and 34.9 months for patients with high and low LDH levels, respectively (P=0.0014). In the bevacizumab group, partial responses were seen in 14 (58%) high-LDH and 8 (14%) low-LDH patients (P=0.0243), respectively, median PFS was 7.3 and 8.5 months, respectively (P=0.2), and median OS was 22 and 26.6 months, respectively (P=0.7).

Conclusion:

High LDH levels correlated with worse prognosis. Bevacizumab seemed capable of improving clinical outcome in this specific group of patients who usually present with an adverse natural history. The improved response rate also suggests a role for LDH as a predictive marker.     

VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms affect clinical outcome in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients receiving first-line sunitinib

Background:

Currently, sunitinib represents one of the therapeutic strongholds for renal cell carcinoma, but the criteria for treatment selection are lacking. We assessed the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) polymorphisms in the prediction of the clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients.

Methods:

A total of 84 tumour samples from mRCC patients receiving first-line sunitinib were tested for VEGF and VEGFR single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNP results were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results:

Median PFS was 8.22 months, although whereas median OS was 32.13 months. The VEGF A rs833061 resulted significant in PFS (17 vs 4 months; P<0.0001) and OS (38 vs 10 months; P<0.0001). The VEGF A rs699947 was significant for PFS (18 vs 4 months; P=0.0001) and OS (37 vs 16 months; P<0.0001). The VEGF A rs2010963 was significant in PFS (18 vs 8 vs 2 months; P=0.0001) and OS (31 vs 36 vs 9 months; P=0.0045). The VEGR3 rs6877011 was significant in PFS (12 vs 4 months; P=0.0075) and OS (36 vs 17 months; P=0.0001). At multivariate analysis, rs833061, rs2010963 and rs68877011 were significant in PFS, and rs833061 and rs68877011 were independent factors in OS.

Conclusions:

In our analysis, patients with TT polymorphism of rs833061, CC polymorphism of rs699947, CC polymorphism of rs2010963 and CG polymorphism of rs6877011 seem to have a worse PFS and OS when receiving first-line sunitinib.     

FOLFOX6 and bevacizumab in non-optimally resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer

Background:

In patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) R0 resection significantly improves overall survival (OS).

Methods:

In this report, we present the results of a phase II trial of FOLFOX6+bevacizumab in patients with non-optimally resectable CLM. Patients received six cycles of FOLFOX6+ five of bevacizumab. Patients not achieving resectability received six additional cycles of each. A PET-CT was performed at baseline and again within 1 month after initiating treatment.

Results:

From September 2005 to July 2009, 21 patients were enrolled (Male/Female: 15/6; median age: 65 years). An objective response (OR) was documented in 12 cases (57.1% complete responses (CRs): 3, partial response (PR): 9); one patient died from toxicity before surgery. Thirteen patients underwent radical surgery (61.9%). Three (23%) had a pathological CR (pCR). Six patients (46.1%) experienced minor postsurgical complications. After a median 38.8-month follow-up, the median OS was 22.5 months. Patients achieving at least 1 unit reduction in Standard uptake value (SUV)max on PET-CT had longer progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS: 22 vs 14 months, P=0.001).

Conclusions:

FOLFOX6+bevacizumab does not increase postsurgical complications, yields high rates of resectability and pCR. Early changes in PET-CT seem to be predictive of longer PFS.     

Phase II study of everolimus with biomarker exploration in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to chemotherapy including fluoropyrimidine and platinum

Background:

To evaluate the activity and safety of everolimus and identify potential biomarkers for efficacy of everolimus in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), who failed both fluoropyrimidine and platinum.

Methods:

Fifty-four patients received everolimus (10 mg day⁻¹). The primary objective was to determine the 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate, assumed to be 30%. We additionally investigated the potential biomarkers for everolimus as an exploratory endpoint in those who underwent tumour biopsies.

Results:

Two patients (3.7%) achieved partial response and the disease control rate (DCR) was 38.9%. At a median follow-up duration of 8.7 months, the 4-month PFS rate was 18.4%, not fulfilling the primary hypothesis, with a median PFS of 1.7 months and a median overall survival of 8.3 months. The high expression of pS6^Ser240/4 at baseline was significantly associated with higher DCR (P=0.043) and prolonged PFS (P=0.001). Grade 1/2 asthenia (96.3%) recorded as the leading toxicity and hyperglycaemia (20.4%) was the most common non-hematological grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients experienced grade 3/4 pneumonitis. Notably, two experienced treatment-related deaths.

Conclusion:

Everolimus is active against a limited number of patients with AGC. pS6^Ser240/4 may be a potential predictive biomarker for everolimus, which requires validation. Careful monitoring is necessary despite generally favourable toxicity profile.     

In vivo RAF signal transduction as a potential biomarker for sorafenib efficacy in patients with neuroendocrine tumours

Background:

Targeted therapies elicit anticancer activity by exerting pharmacodynamic effects on specific molecular targets. Currently, there is limited use of pharmacodynamic assessment to guide drug administration in the routine oncology setting.

Methods:

We developed a phosphoshift (pShift) flow cytometry-based test that measures RAF signal transduction capacity in peripheral blood cells, and evaluated it in a phase II clinical trial of oral sorafenib plus low-dose cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), in order to predict clinical course and/or guide individual dose-titration.

Results:

Twenty-two patients were enrolled. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3 months (95% CI 2–10.7), and one patient had a partial response. PFS was longer among five patients who demonstrated an increase in pShift after 7 days of sorafenib compared with those who did not (14.9 months vs 2.8 months; P=0.047). However, pShift did not add value to toxicity-based dose-titration.

Conclusion:

The pharmacodynamic assessment of RAF transduction may identify selected patients with advanced NETs most likely to benefit from the combination of sorafenib plus cyclophosphamide. Further investigation of this test as a potential biomarker is warranted.     

VeriStrat? has prognostic value in advanced stage NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib and sorafenib

Background:

The serum proteomic test VeriStrat has been shown to be able to classify advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients for overall survival (OS) after treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In this study, VeriStrat was evaluated as a pre-treatment stratification tool in patients with advanced stage NSCLC for treatment with the combination of erlotinib and sorafenib, considering both OS and progression-free survival (PFS) as end points.

Methods:

Serum samples from 50 patients treated within the context of a phase II trial of first-line erlotinib and sorafenib were analysed with VeriStrat, a fully locked mass spectrometry-based test that identifies patients likely to have good or poor outcome on EGFR therapy based on eight distinct features in mass spectra. Analysis was performed fully blinded to all clinical data, and then the outcome data were analysed with respect to the obtained serum classifications.

Results:

VeriStrat classified pre-treatment samples into two groups, VeriStrat Good and VeriStrat Poor, which were significantly different in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.30, log-rank P=0.009) and in PFS (HR 0.40, log-rank P=0.035).

Conclusion:

VeriStrat has shown its potential for stratification of unselected, advanced stage NSCLC patients treated in first line with a combination of erlotinib and sorafenib.